How do you fit monks into Occidental campaigns?

[Mallus]

You fit Shaolin-style monks into generic Western European fantasy settings the same way you fit square pegs into round holes: with a mallet and a gleefully deranged look on your face.

 

[Argyle King]

I think people forget that there were (and are) martial arts which did not originate in Asia. Likewise, there are examples of monks in Western literature - Friar Tuck is a well known example; depending upon the version of Robin Hood you read, he was a very accomplished pugilist.

 

[WizarDru]

Personally, I don't see the big problem. The Monk, as a class, is clearly inspired by the various kung-fu movies of the 70s, from the Shaw Brothers and certainly from the American TV series. I'm not sure how that makes it racist, personally. An individual player portraying a stereotype certainly would be, but no such player would be welcome at my table.

What I find interesting is the selective blinders folks apply to introducing something like the monk to a game like D&D. In a game where medieval technologies from across 5 or 6 centuries sit side-by-side and where a monotheistic setting is often changed to a pantheistic setting with little social change and where real, actual sentient non-human beings exist in huge numbers with no discernable effect on the social order....in this game, featuring characters like monks and barbarians sitting side-by-side with fighting-priests and wizards...well, I don't see it that far of a stretch, really.

I mean, D&D features a fantasy setting that is no more authentic than your average Renn Faire (and perhaps less so). Weapons and armor from distant and disparate real world nations sit side-by-side at the blacksmith, selling plate-mail on the shelf next to a rapier. Druids hang out with paladins and bards hang out with clerics.

I can understand if the monk breaks your personal suspension-of-disbelief...I just think it's funny where folks pick and choose which particular historical inaccuracy stands out for them, personally.

Me, I go with the MST3K theory, but to each his own. As long as you're having fun, then it's all good.

 

[Baron Opal]

...I have very basic problems with the notion of "I can be just as effective of a combatant bare handed and naked as I could with a weapon and armor.", regardless of class implementation. ...In a world where your naked bare handed men can be front line warriors, why would weapons and armor ever be invented? Not needing equipment with its expense and hassle is a huge advantage.

SCIENCE!

or rather

ALCHEMY!

I, too, have some problems with the idea of someone with "just the right training" beating the snot out of someone with armor and weapons. How does this happen, how widespread is the training, &c. Then, I read the dark elf / dwarf book for Scarred Lands (Burak Torn?) and I thought of the "monk training" being alchemical enhancement.

For a long time I've felt that monks should be more Bannor than Wong Fei-hung. After coming across some phots of the condition of argyria, where an excess of injested silver is deposited in the skin, that convinced me. So now the argyrians are a group of people who undergo a rigorous regimen of diet and exercise along with injesting alchemical concoctions. This toughens the skin to withstand indirect blows with weapons and their training increases the chances that they can partially deflect attacks so they are indirect contacts.

I like the concept of a method of training that allows an unarmed and armored person to be able to hold their own against a trained warrior. Once I came up with a way to do so in a magical world, I was set.

 

[Umbran]

Likewise, I have very basic problems with the notion of "I can be just as effective of a combatant bare handed and naked as I could with a weapon and armor.", regardless of class implementation.

So, wizards are right out, then? Because, in combat, without weapons and armor, wizards can roast guys with weapons, and in armor. From a distance, even.

 

[Argyle King]

While it's not entirely realistic for an unarmed combatant to regularly trounce people in plate armor with weapons; it's not entirely unrealistic either. Many martial arts from around the world have techniques which specifically address the concept of fighting against armed attackers. Still, I would hazard to say that the way such a thing is implemented in D&D tends more toward the unrealistic; however, I think it is perfectly in line with D&D's version of reality. Other systems treat the idea in a manner more consistant with reality.


One fluff way to handle the 'problem' is to suggest that difficulty of training is part of the reason why everyone in a world doesn't simply learn to fight unarmed. Historically, many new weapons replaced the older established equipment simply because it was easier to teach people to use the new equipment. It may take years to train an effective archer; I can teach someone to use even a primitive and unreliable rifle effectively in a few months.

Another route is to suggest that monks use some sort of spirit magic, chi; etc; etc. The reason why not everyone learns the abilities is for the same reason that not everyone learns the world shaking powers of a wizard.

 

[Argyle King]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f67LgpJBPPE&feature=related]YouTube - Chuck Norris Super Kick[/ame]

 

[pawsplay]

While it's not entirely realistic for an unarmed combatant to regularly trounce people in plate armor with weapons; it's not entirely unrealistic either.

Historically, a sizeable fraction of actual deaths came from knocking your opponent over, then stabbing him in the neck with a knife. While the techniques for knocking your opponent over (lance, pike, jiujitsu, hammer, etc.) have been varied, the central strategy remains central to killing people in melee even today.

But let's be honest, most fatalities resulted from everyone fighting until they were too tired, then going back to their camps and seeing who died of infected wounds first.

 

[prosfilaes]

I find it horrifyingly hilarious that people are jumping on a guy who literally just said "Yeah I'm asian and it's incredibly horrible when people turn the monk into a racist stereotype."

Seriously? We're going to get mad at someone for saying "Yo don't be racist?"

Wow, you do have a skill at forming a strawman version of any argument. What he actually said was that the monk is a racist class--being debated, that people are using the monk as a racist stereotype--which nobody was arguing wasn't true, and that he didn't feel responsible for responding to racist stereotypes that weren't directed at him--which I said was very narrow sighted.

 

[Funkenstein23]

I dont think the occidental or not argument is as valid as it might look from the outside. I dont know a lot of people who play an actual medieval setting. They play a fantasy setting. With magic and robots and vampire-werewolves. For example, if I'm playing D&D, my giant sapient mantis using kung-fu all over a guy is just as likely as her hitting him with a broadsword or a psychic burst or a fireball. If someone is really intent on a mythologically accurate medieval setting, losing unarmed combat should be the least of their worries. They should be more concerned with losing psionics, more than half of the player races and like 100% of the fluff.